World Government – Sucking Since 1945

18 September, 2006 at 10:33 pm | In Incompetence Exposed | 41 Comments

Recently I have heard much about this concept of a World Government – the unification of humankind into one group of universal law, currency and perhaps even language.

Obviously this concept is a miserable failure.

Let us look at the UN: the current global “overseeing” body that we have.

In fairy-tale la la land, it’s led or “Secretary-Generaled” by this guy:

And:

Basically some coloured people from Developing Nations… who are rich. Great representation.

In reality though, it’s led by this guy:

Seems quite obvious now, because a black guy could never lead such a large organisation… (Blacks: please note the obvious sarcasm in the previous statement)

This rampaging monkey of a man, can do anything he feels like, because his country makes up most of the financial part of this United Nations thing.

Basically what this “overseeing body” does is ensure that human rights and civil liberties are upheld worldwide, give economic aid to countries in need or after disasters, provide “humanitarian assistance and individual development, create treaties and some form of international law, stop countries randomly invading others, assist in “arms control and disarmament”, and go on wacky “peacekeeping” mission worldwide… That is, unless your country, or its corrupt government, doesn’t want them to.

And that chimp guy up top certainly doesn’t… together with other crazed dictators worldwide.

Wow, such a powerful organisation!

So the United Nations, like the League of Nations before it, is basically obsolete…. and their website is ugly

So now let’s look at this “World Government”

It will be again be run by one of these Dubbya types, be ignored by militant groups in other countries, but it will also not do anyone any good.

Even in actual countries today, centralisation of government has made large portions of nations impotent, as policies have favoured rich cores of a country, while allowing the standard of living in the periphery to drop and drop. A prime example of this would be India, where the poorer regions have suffered because of Unitarism.

Now imagine a global government, where an international law making body has to control both the rich and the ultra-poor and think of the influence imbalance between the powers, which would lead to an ever growing split between the two classes.

The different forms of government in these countries will also cause massive problems, with rebel groups rebelling (really?) against the system and branching off on their own.

Some countries, such as North Korea or the U.S.A. were just meant to live in complete oppression, while Scandinavia can bask in their civil liberties. These things will not just change – the brainwashing occurring in totalitarian regimes cannot be easily overthrown. And forcing the rich to give away their money is like taking candy from a baby (no that easy, eh?)

So, while humanism suggests we should all join together peacefully, and it is philosophically sound that we do such a thing, the greed and intolerance of mankind will never allow this to happen.

41 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Yet again another good blog entry.
Quite unfair though since the U.N does a very good job at some things such as environmental laws. The League Of Nations also cannot be put in the same boat as the U.N as it didnt have the cooperation of the bulk of the countries in the world like the U.N does, The League of Nations only had SOME of the powerful nations and none of the other countries.
The U.N on the other hand has lasted for a long while despite the stress put on it by some countries like the U.S.A. It really has done a good job at many things-look at the nuclear weapon situation! Very few countries have them!
Be fair Junaman!

Comment by shrinkley — 18 September, 2006 #
It only takes one country to have nukes to be able to blow up the world….

Comment by junaman — 18 September, 2006 #
The U.N. has done a good job, but once again, only countries that feel like it adhere to any of their laws: there is nothing forcing them to adhere.

Also, keep in mind that the only time nuclear weapons were used against an opposing force was when only one country had them…

Comment by junaman — 19 September, 2006 #
Yeah nukes were used when only 1 coutry had them AND We WERE IN A FULL ON WORLD WAR that didnt look like it would end. Also only 1 country had them because they had only just been developed and nobody knew what they were capable of! Remember Junaman they were only used so that an invasion of Japan would not have to take place as it was decided that that would be more catastrophic to both sides!
Then about the U.N’s lawsand charters etc. These are MEANT to be enforced by all individuals, companies and countries. Whether they are or not is not up to the U.N Remeber they are only a representative council NOT a World Government organisation.
You cannot say the failings of the U.N and the league of Nations have too much of a bering on how a propper World Government would function. Both those organisations are simply representative councils!

Comment by shrinkley — 19 September, 2006 #
Re: nukes… yes, I’m not arguing about the motive behind nuking japan. My point was that the only time they had been used was when one nation had them, and if other nations did too, there may have been some second thought…

This was regarding your point about UN disarmament missions.

I don’t want to argue for the morality of nukes, because that would be quite difficult, but you could argue that the less countries that have nukes, especially if they are all allied, the more chance they will use them, if the opponent can’t strike back with the same force.

“Then about the U.N’s lawsand charters etc. These are MEANT to be enforced by all individuals, companies and countries. Whether they are or not is not up to the U.N Remeber they are only a representative council NOT a World Government organisation.”

Exactly, they have no actual power, and it is hard to fathom how a world government would have any…

Also, my point about over-centralised government still stands… There have been many cases in history where this has hindered whole nations and especially poorer parts of nations. The Soviet regime is a prime example, but there a many more.

Comment by junaman — 19 September, 2006 #
A nation under one rule, one government.

This could happen in an ideal world.

Government has a hard enough time keeping local -let alone- state and federal laws enforced.

Comment by James — 19 September, 2006 #
the morality of using nukes? mismatching concepts much? the is nothing moral about using something that WILL cause casualties to masses of civilians. was 9/11 okay? and I personally would rather die facing an enemy evenly than hide behind overpowering, and unintelligent, force. Let me put a little perspective on it. if millions of americans HAD died as a result of that war, through conventional invasion rather than using a nuke, america would never have been drawn into korea or vietnam because at that time the population was intelligent enough to connect cause and effect to see that killing others for ideals is the worst possible route, in fact making moot the very ideals youre “fighting” for. those two wars didnt even involve the U.S., but they stuck their nose in it anyway because those countries were becoming communistic, which is ironic considering if you believe humans have free will, a country should decide for itself what it wants, and isnt that the basis of america? I dont think so anymore, the public is told what they want and given it and they take it as “its just a little more to give up”. A million ant bites kills, you know. its complacency, hopelessness, and a feeling of as long as it doesnt affect me, I won’t make a fuss. But in the end all things effect everyone. If you’ve ever heard of causality you know that 1 thing affects everything around it. So too, does political bullshit spread. you can see the effect that relying on something overpowering has. you have the confidence that there will be no retaliation on your home soil for fear of those nuclear weapons. If you’ve ever seen Akira, or at least had more than a few brain cells at some poin t in your life, you’d notice how power corrupts. america has nukes, therefore, if you draw the conclusion, you have nukes, and noone will attack you, as an american, if you stay in your country. this illusion of invincibility creates the same reaction in an individual as tetsuo had when he gained all that power so quickly. if you consider that morals are based on the fact that we need each other because we’re frail, having this illusion of supreme power over the world, if only because we can threaten, gives the feeling of no matter how wrong you are, nobody will argue, and you dont have to accept your wrongdoings. 9/11 was a giant spanking to the spoiled brats, even if it was wrong, it proved that nowhere is truly safe. Thats why theres so much panic and giving in to the unethical and moronic practices that strip the liberties from americans. At least, under the old beliefs of what america should be, these are unethical and moronic. But it was this sudden shattering of their idealised world that caused such a knee jerk reaction. now, finally, 45% of americans thus far have woken up and realised the truth, its only a matter of time before the romantic notions of being above other countries is dispelled from the eyes of the rest of the blindly believing, because its easier to be led like a sheep as long as youre reassured than think for yourself. america, you’re a community, no matter how much you think individuals matter, and they do, they are the sum of the community, if you pull in all directions from eachother you get nothing, that doesnt mean let others lead you, it means trying to work together. I personally cannot believe that when katrina killed so many, no action was taken to prevent those deaths. When has a country with so much resources, and so much manpower(ANY and all civilians, plus armed forces) doing nothing but watch their fellow countrymen die on tv and say, such a shame. this wasnt an enemy you could threaten or reason with, the only way to save those people wouldve been to help them escape, and early and as quickly as possible. Where was the national ideal then, or is america now doomed in the ideology of every man for himself. It never worked in prehistoric world, with all those predators vs frail human bodies, and it doesnt seem to work so now either. either decide to thrive as a community, or let america, and the dream, fall. And yet, for all this, the natural psychological defense, especially in this day and age, is to immediately deny any and all truths that seem to attack your ideas. dont bother thinking about it, or looking at it objectively. the downward spiral is an indication of a chaotic future that ends in revolution anyway. what country has had only one or two anyway? its the norm.

Comment by tomy1 — 19 September, 2006 #
Woah woah woah… my choice of words was quite wrong there, and I fully agree with you: there is no morality in using nukes… and the whole philosophy of them being deterring is very dangerous, just as with guns.
I completely agree with what you’re saying.

Comment by junaman — 20 September, 2006 #
@ tomy1: One of the best posts I’ve read. I can’t cover everything that you posted right now. It’s just a shame that after so many wake-up calls that there are a majority of people that don’t seek to inform themselves about past/current events, but instead choose to follow without thinking.
I wish I could give your post at least a half decent reply but it’s 1am here in Sydney and my brain is half asleep already.

cheers

Comment by Kris — 20 September, 2006 #
Do you really think any country, even China has the ability to invade the United States? China’s military size is nearly the same as the United States, except for that pesky problem of having 4x their population and much more incentive to join up. Like not starving to death.

The U.S. military is using a very small portion of the population and eligible candidates. Why? Because there is no reason for them to join.

Consider nearly ever single home in the U.S. owns at least one firearm. In the event of a foreign invasion, there would be plenty of fighting and resistance. You could fire off a dozen nukes in every major city and you still couldn’t make it past California. Assuming you somehow destroyed the Naval war machine in the first place.

Comment by Stevey J — 20 September, 2006 #
Excellent posts!
World events, history, governments, techonology, anything along the line of us as a civilization really interests me, also why we do so much evil in this world really amazes me. I talk to friends (the ones willing to even listen!) about some basic world knowledge ive researched and they seem shocked.
Its not like i am a greenie or some ultra serious guy who hounds people at parties, no i just find it strange in this day of age why we people dont care? we have the resources and techonlogy to do much better than we are.
I mean starvation everyone knows about and honenstly what have u done about it? except maybe a stupid remark not to waste food cause people are starving. Or take the environment, corruption, wars, the list goes on……..
Now my question is where can i learn more?

Comment by Tussy — 20 September, 2006 #
Empires rise and fall but there will always be one to replace them .Question do you really think there will be a time where we do not live in fear of war ?
If your answer is yes then you live in a dream world war will always be there even long after the human race’s life as extinguished war will still be there ..

Comment by MrDearden — 20 September, 2006 #
junaman — with all the nitwits that think you have a clue what you’re writing about, and you don’t, you should start some sort of cult and sell your bs to the other ignoramuses. You’re onto something here son. Call it idiot-chic.

Comment by J — 20 September, 2006 #
I was surprised and relieved that Bush decided to talk nicely today. He said he didn’t want to start a war, good that he knows that with Blair gone in March, he’ll be alone-without any allies to support a war in Iran.

Comment by lightcontrast — 20 September, 2006 #
Interesting post and a lot of responses, esp. tomy1 with the Akira, Tetsuo, absolute power analogy. I recently watched Why We Fight and Fog of War, two documentaries looking at nuances of the Macnamara era and lies America is fed by the media. I’m not a conspiracist, but Americans in general do believe either A.) We have nukes, thus I have nukes, so no one will F%$# with me, or B.) Who cares, the world is running out of oil, should I get an H2 or an Escalade.

I post more ranting, a little less serious and slightly less scathing on my blog, http://www.underdogryan.blogspot.com but this was entertaining!

Comment by tecmorose — 20 September, 2006 #
There is an unmistakable movement towards unity in so many places in society and in the world. Internet, globalisation, EU, even global warming. A World (Peace) Army, a world currency and a world government are only natural ‘products’ of such a development. World Government is so often associated with one powerful man at the top who pulls the strings, but it will be much more like the EU ‘government’ that is there to protect the citizens and to create employment opportunities and the like. The World Government will be necessary to structure the efforts to combat global warming, climate change, the create and develop clean energy sources, to prevent wars and internal conflicts and …….. simply said create prosperity for all people in the world. Huge concentrated power in the hands of a few will be a thing of the past.
Internet by itself is a structure that promotes and creates world unity. It is not far fetched to think that it can play an important role to come to a sort of world government that is acceptable by you. It is the individual that is coming to rule the 21st century.

Comment by Robert — 20 September, 2006 #
Even so, the EU is composed of countries that have similar levels of social and economic development, in a region that has traditionally been ahead of the rest of the world and comprised of similar nations.

Membership in the Union is voluntary.
Poorer nations in Europe are not members of the EU…

Compare this to an organisation of every region in the world with all its differences and a forced participation in this World Government…

Comment by junaman — 20 September, 2006 #
If it happens so, It will be a miracle of God.
Pakcar

Comment by ayazmahmood — 20 September, 2006 #
Well there goes any chance of it happening…..

Comment by junaman — 20 September, 2006 #
Yes, the EU has a voluntary membership. My point is that it is very successful in drawing new members. It is an example of a win-win arrangement.
A World Government has to be voluntary and cannot be enforced. It has to be attractive so every country wants to join. Take the example of a World Army (with voluntary membership) where the World Army guarantees its members that it will defend any member that is attacked. Such an membership and arrangement is very attractive for many countries for it increases the sense of security and decreases the defense budget (as a collective army is far less expensive).

By the way, it is not correct that poorer countries cannot or do not join the EU. Rumania and Bulgaria are among the poorest countries in the EU and they are joining next year. For a country to join it has to meet certain criteria, rich or poor does not enter the equation.

Comment by Robert — 20 September, 2006 #
@ Junaman about the EU: remember that the pioneers of what we now know as Europe, started off in a region that had been devastated by the 2 most large-scale, gruesome wars ever, and after a period of centuries of regional wars and conflict. In other words, in 1945 it was by no means obvious that 60 years later the EU is where it is with, as Robert posted, also poor countries joining and – important – countries already joined that were only 16 years ago part of a communist regime!

The reason the EU works is that countries want to join! ‘Brussels’ is not forcing Bulgaria, Bulgaria is asking to join. And that is the key to success for both a globally co-operative security system (or World Army) and a global supra-national government. There is no European government in Brussels; there only seat the people that keep track of the agreements that the individual countries make.

Comment by Mark — 20 September, 2006 #
Sure the UN isn’t very efective -but surely we ought to TRY for some sort of global democracy. You could equally argue that democracy with in a given country is unviable because of power imbalances. But we have somthing like democracy in a number of countries. So lets try to make organisations like the UN more democratic. Like getting rid of the power of veto, and permanent membership on the security council. For this to happen though there needs to be political will, which can only come from domestic political pressure within countries like the US, UK, Germany, France, etc. Global democracy is a good idea. It isn’t working, so lets make it work instead of bitching about it. I’d really like to see little counties getting together to bargain collectively in international forums, so they could stand up to big powers when they needed to. Still the last time someone tried to do this they were assasinated (Sukarno).

Comment by TheBrainSlug — 20 September, 2006 #
“Like getting rid of the power of veto”

That’s all very well, but how do you expect to enforce this against powerful countries. I mean, the USA won’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol, how are you going to try to enforce that?

“The reason the EU works is that countries want to join”

This won’t happen in a wider region due to the increased racial, religious, socio-economic differences between countries.
Once again, Muslims won’t want to be part of a Western government, but if we were to have a Muslim government, then no one would want to adhere to Sharia law… Thus always leading to rogue nations.

Comment by junaman — 20 September, 2006 #
yeah lol to that Robert

Comment by shrinkley — 20 September, 2006 #
World government sucks since 1945….I think you mean 1945 BC or before that Plato talks about one world government in “The Republic”.

It’s been in the making and planning for a long long time.

You have to be nut’s to be ruled by another country or people’s.

good blog!

Comment by Anthony King — 20 September, 2006 #
The UN has not done a “good job”. It’s economic programs just keep the poor countries poor and makes the rich international corporations even richer. And if the WTO works in any way like the Federal Reserve, the world is truly fucked.

Comment by Homeboy McGriddle — 24 September, 2006 #
@Homeboy’s “good job”: it is not all a poor job. Last year was annoiunced as the year of micro-credits. It became quite a success. The micro-credits give the poor access to money at reasonable interest rates. It is a way out of their poverty. After repaying the loan they can apply for a bigger loan etc. The recovery rate of the first 100.000 micro-credits by ABN-AMRO in India was an incredible full 100%. I do not mind if the poor become big business for the large corporations
What the poor need is purchasing power, not AID! It is the economy that will save the world. The WTO with all its defects is still the best vehicle for that. The rich countries investing in poor countries and so developing their markets is a powerful tool. See what is happening in India and China. After India threw open their market economic growth is above 8% a year. The negative effects that were predicted did not happen.
The present government even made into law the right of every man to a job for a minimum of 100 days a year. There are very few countries that have made a job a human right.

Comment by Robert — 24 September, 2006 #
I agree with Robert, to an extent.
But I am somewhat skeptical of the good done by corporations in these disadvantaged countries. Although the outside investment can help to stimulate the economy, the majority of profits are sent overseas, and these profits are taxed by their home country (by and large, the USA). The corporations make a token investment in infrastructure, reap enormous profits from cheap labour, and send money back home.
However, exploitary foreign investment is often a harsh economic truth for a poor country.

Comment by porcelainmonkey — 24 September, 2006 #
@porcelainmonkey : it is often not as bad as you discribe. For instance a foreign company wanting to invest in India needs an Indian partner and that partner has to have control of minimum 51% of the stock by law. It means that a minority of profits can be sent overseas.
In India we also see a new phenomenon of Indians returning from wellpaid jobs in the US to take up wellpaid jobs in India. In time everything evens out. Wages in China and India are already rising in many areas.
I think foreign investment is an important tool to develop the markets of poor countries and in the end will have ‘only’ positive effects (cheaper products – even jobs – for us in the richer countries and jobs and purchasing power for the economies of the poorer countries).

Comment by Robert — 25 September, 2006 #
so robert….
Youre saying that one country out of the many developing countries in the world is having great successes because it has a law which essentially stops them being ripped off by the “foreign investors”
Dont you think that by using only that one example{which we all know is one of the fastest growing countries on the planet} you are giving a very biased view! What about all the little countries around the world who are “developing” much more slowly because they have most of their money and resources taken out of their country by the corporations who are “investing” in their countries. There is a reason why India has this law and that is because foreign investments from globalised corporations takes a huge amount out of poorer countries without giving much back. They pay minimal wages and often leave the countries with major costs once they have used the resources such as environmental waste and degredation.
In my opinion the way that foreign companies use poor developing nations is cruel! It is unfair and quite disgusting!

Comment by shrinkley — 26 September, 2006 #
@shrinkley …. I meant to say there are many countries that will have similar laws and arrangements to protect them from major exploitations.
I fully agree with you that large corporations are robbing and abusing poor countries and especially the poorest countries. It is a great shame but the emergence of “social responsible and sustainable entrepreneurship” is a positive development in this area and an area where we can do something. (Large) corporations are sensitive to public opinion.
In general I am looking for the positive developments in the world. The negative ones are no comfort for the future and can only be competed away by positive ones. I think I see major movements and developments that are different from the past and may be powerful enough to change the world for the better. Internet is one of them.

Comment by Robert — 27 September, 2006 #
“(Large) corporations are sensitive to public opinion.”

So is the president but that doesn’t seem to affect him being crap… and keeping his approval rating up (at least in the past)

Comment by junaman — 27 September, 2006 #
@junaman : I thought your president was an example (or sample) of insensitivity
Global warming is not his concern. How many Katrina’s are necessary to turn him sensitive?
NASA says that another 2 or 3 degrees rise in global temperature will add 25 meters to the sea level. Gloep …. living behind 30 meter high dykes!

Comment by Robert — 27 September, 2006 #
“I thought your president was an example (or sample) of insensitivity”

Not MY president, I’m not American… I just happen to write about that country because the politics of my own are primitive and insignificant.

He does suck though

Comment by junaman — 27 September, 2006 #
Robert : living behind 30 meter high dykes!

They prefer “women in comfortable shoes”

Comment by porcelainmonkey — 28 September, 2006 #
Ok… Everyone is overlooking the most important fact here…

Lets just say, hypothetically, that a one world government becomes a fact.. and all nations agree to follow one set of laws…

If you are born ANYWHERE, and do not agree with those laws you have NO WHERE TO GO. Are you gonna leave the planet? No. This is an impossible idealistic dream that can never be realised, and if it was, there will always be factions that do not agree, an “underground” and revolution is just a matter of time. This atmosphere guarantees terrorism, because everything is the police state, and anyone against it will be a terrorist.

Please people wake up and just look at the logic above… It CAN NOT WORK.

Rev. MindsEye

Comment by MindsEye — 30 September, 2006 #
@MindsEye: your idea of a World Government is going off in the wrong direction. A World Government will be there to protect and to regulate. It will have a World Army to abolish war on this planet. It will have a World Currency to bring prosperity. It will protect Human Rights. Why should that not work? Why should anyone in his right mind object to that?
You raise the point about laws and not agreeing to them and going underground to plan a revolution. I think that the World Government will only work if it works similar to the ‘Government’ we have in the EU. It does not meddle in the affairs of the countries, it just regulates things. It does not make laws that impede our freedom or come in the way of liberal democracy. When you look at a World Government like that you also will have little objection. World Government is an institute that you better compare with an institute like education or money.

Comment by Robert — 3 October, 2006 #
@ Robert
Dude. World Army to abolish war sounds pretty, but that same gigantic army can utterley destroy deomcracy and any sort of peaceful resistance. What you believe is a utopia is in fact a dystopia waiting to happen.
I don’t know how you think a world currency = prosperity… things dont just happen because of new currencies, abuse of the poor (among other things) still happen.
It will protect Human Rights. WTF! You have come to the conclusion that World Govt. is a benevolent God. Look at history man, governments get corrupted, governments don’t always deliver, governments are not tools of deliverance.
You say that world govt would only “regulate things”. With the biggest army in the world and a couple of thousand nukes, regulation gains a new, totalitarian, definition.

It does not make laws that impede our freedom or come in the way of liberal democracy.

DUDE. You think liberal democracy is the best just because you live in it. Think of all the people in the world who don’t want a free-for-all economic system etc. What about the people who want a strict Islamic govt. / social democracy / communism / anarchy? Screw ‘em?
Nice man, real nice…
When I look at a World Govt. like that I want to not only object to it, but I want to make sure that it never ever comes into the smallest level of existence.

Comment by porcelainmonkey — 12 October, 2006 #
@porcelainmonkey Your arguments are based on a wrong perspective. NATO does not destroy democracy, why would a World Army does so? NATO is not totalitarian. World Army is only an enlarged NATO of sorts and formed by democracies. Furthermore a World Army does not have to be gigantic to be effective.

That a world currency will bring prosperity is just economics, nothing special there.

Your objections against a World Government are not necessary. The EU is a European Government. It is voluntary and countries join because it is advantageous. The same thing will be there for a World Government. It will be voluntary and countries will join because it will be advantageous to them (security, prosperity, environment, freedom etc.) Why would it be so dark as you imagine?
Don’t you see what peace and prosperity the EU has brought to the member countries? Has our freedom be curtailed? It has brought us only positive things. Sure, people will complain but that is their nature. The facts are that all indices have improved continously.

The key is that all this is voluntary and not compulsary as you might think. These are win-win opportunities.

Comment by Robert — 19 October, 2006 #
I was needing help with a question. Have the US ever tried to form a world government? When? Why? And how successful was the attempt? If anyone knows please help. My email is: tj_mays2000@yahoo.com.

Thanks

Comment by TMack — 29 November, 2006 #
Hi! very amused by the website .

Comment by Florida — 16 April, 2007 #